Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 30 — INTOXICATING LIQUORS · Chapter 545 — Liquor Control Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-46 (2025)

Discretionary suspension, revocation or refusal of permit; location or character of premises; other grounds

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Department of Consumer Protection may, except as to a store engaged chiefly in the sale of groceries, in its discretion, suspend, revoke or refuse to grant or renew a permit for the sale of alcoholic liquor if the department has reasonable cause to believe that (1) the proximity of the permit premises to any charitable institution supported by private or public funds, church, convent, hospital, public or parochial school, or veterans' home, or any barracks, camp or flying field of the armed forces, will detrimentally impact such institution, church, convent, hospital, school, home, barracks, camp or field, (2) the permit premises is in such proximity to a no-permit town so that it is apparent that the applicant is seeking to obtain the patronage of persons in such town, (3) the number of permit premises in the locality is such that granting a permit is detrimental to the public interest, and, in reaching a conclusion in this respect, the department may consider the character and population of, and the number of like permits and all permits existent in, the particular town and the immediate neighborhood concerned and the effect which a new permit may have on such town or neighborhood or on like permits existent in such town or neighborhood, (4) the place has been conducted as a lewd or disorderly establishment, (5) the backer does not have a right to occupy the permit premises, (6) drive-up sales of alcoholic liquor, other than curbside pick-up allowed under subsection (d) of section 30-20, are being made at the permit premises, or (7) there is any other reason as provided by state or federal law or regulation which warrants such refusal.

(b) (1) The existence of a coliseum permit issued under section 30-33a shall not be a factor to be taken into consideration under subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of this section.

(2) The provisions of subdivisions (1), (2) and (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to issuance of a coliseum permit under section 30-33a.

(1949 Rev., S. 4263; P.A. 73-533, S. 11; P.A. 74-307, S. 3, 8; P.A. 77-614, S. 165, 587, 610; P.A. 78-303, S. 80, 85, 136; P.A. 80-482, S. 4, 170, 191, 345, 348; P.A. 95-195, S. 49, 83; P.A. 97-175, S. 5; P.A. 98-236, S. 3; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(d); P.A. 04-169, S. 17; 04-189, S. 1; P.A. 21-37, S. 66; P.A. 22-104, S. 5.)

History: P.A. 73-533 added Subsecs. (6) and (7), codified as Subsec. (b), re applicability of provisions with regard to coliseum and coliseum concession permits; P.A. 74-307 added new Subsec. (c) re sales of alcoholic liquor in special sporting facilities; P.A. 77-614 and P.A. 78-303 replaced liquor control commission with division of liquor control within the department of business regulation, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-482 made division of liquor control an independent department and abolished the department of business regulation, overriding provision of same act which would have placed the division within the public safety department; P.A. 95-195 amended Subsecs. (a) and (c) by substituting Department of Consumer Protection for Department of Liquor Control, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 97-175 amended Subsec. (a) by adding suspension, revocation or refusal to renew a permit in the department's discretion, adding new Subdiv. (5) re right to occupy permit premises, renumbering former Subdiv. (5) as Subdiv. (6) and making a technical change, and amended Subsec. (b) by adding reference to Subdiv. (6) of Subsec. (a); P.A. 98-236 amended Subsec. (a) by adding new Subdiv. (6) re drive-up sales and redesignating existing Subdiv. (6) as Subdiv. (7); June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6 and P.A. 04-169 replaced Department of Consumer Protection with Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, thereby reversing the merger of the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective June 1, 2004; P.A. 21-37 amended Subsecs. (b)(1) and (b)(2) by deleting references to coliseum concession permit and deleted former Subsecs. (b)(3) and (c) re special sporting facility permits, effective July 1, 2021; P.A. 22-104 amended Subsec. (a)(6) by adding exception for curbside pick-up allowed under Sec. 30-20, and made technical and conforming changes, effective May 24, 2022.

Section constitutional. 133 C. 556. Unsuitability of place not restricted to plot or structure. Id., 562. In determining number of outlets, commission may draw the line somewhere; and if it does so on sufficient evidence, its action not arbitrary or illegal. Id.; 134 C. 144. Cited. Id., 292. The fact that commission had previously found premises suitable for a permit did not prevent it from later finding them unsuitable. 135 C. 713. Permit does not attach as a right to any particular location; it is purely personal privilege. 137 C. 20. Provides for discretionary refusal of permits by liquor control commission. 142 C. 569. Permit refused where venture found probably not profitable. 144 C. 550. In action for an injunction restraining defendant from using certain premises for the sale of liquor because of its proximity to a prior liquor outlet, the validity of the permit of such prior liquor outlet cannot be collaterally attacked. 148 C. 412. Denial of permit in area where allowable and where there were no other outlets within two miles held an abuse of discretion; 146 C. 416 distinguished. 151 C. 362. Determination of factual matters and a liberal discretion in determining suitability of the location of proposed liquor-permit premises, powers vested in liquor control commission. 164 C. 537.

Cited. 41 CA 83.

Cited. 5 CS 207. Where commission reasoned that the “granting of another permit in this locale would be detrimental to the public interest”, it was held to be an abuse of discretion. 14 CS 155. If club's or association's charter prohibited intoxicating liquor, commission cannot grant permit. 15 CS 69. Cited. 16 CS 301.

Subsec. (a):

Subdiv. (3): Section rests liberal discretion in commission to determine suitability of location of proposed liquor-permit premises. 175 C. 295. Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of commission. Id., 409.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1959–1999 · leading case: Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982). · cites it 2× “§ 23789 (West 1964); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-46 (1981); Del. Code Ann.”
Karp v. Zoning Bd., 240 A.2d 845 (Conn. 1968). · cites it 8× “The town has the power, through its zoning authority, to restrict the use of buildings for the sale of alcoholic liquor to certain zones or districts but cannot, on the other hand, limit the number of liquor outlets in a town since this authority has been delegated to the liquor…”
Rivera v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 728 A.2d 1153 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 13× “The named defendant, the state liquor control commission (commission), 1 pursuant to General Statutes § 30-46 (a) (1) and (3), 2 denied the plaintiffs application for a cafe liquor permit.”
Crescimanni v. Dep't of Liquor Control, 674 A.2d 851 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 8× “The department had denied, pursuant to General Statutes § 30-46 (a) (3), 2 the plaintiffs’ application *85 for a cafe permit to sell alcoholic liquors in conjunction with exotic dancing entertainment on the ground that it would be detrimental to the public interest.”
Williams v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 399 A.2d 834 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 3× “2d 655 , this court in considering the provisions of § 30-46 (a) (3) noted that “[a] principle and purpose may be read into the act to prevent the issuance of too many permits in certain localities, depending upon the character and number of the population and upon the number of…”
Viola v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 260 A.2d 585 (Conn. 1969). · cites it 5× “The similarity relied upon by the defendant hinges principally on the number of permit premises within the area which may serve all types of liquor for consumption on the premises.”
Campisi v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 397 A.2d 1365 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 2× “The character of, the population of, the number of like permits and number of all permits existent in, the particular town and the immediate neighborhood concerned, and the effect new permits may have on such locality are factual matters, properly left to the determination of…”
Barnini v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 151 A.2d 697 (Conn. 1959). “1958, § 30-46) setting forth the factors which the commission is permitted to take into consideration.”
Gulia v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 325 A.2d 455 (Conn. 1973). · cites it 2× “As we have noted, “[t]he Liquor Control Act, of which § 30-46 is a part, ‘contains the suggestion that harm from the sale of liquor, as it relates to place or person, is a matter of special knowledge *539 acquired, or to be acquired, by the liquor control commission.”
Vichi v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 198 A.2d 63 (Conn. 1964). “Section 30-46 (3) of the General Statutes gives the liquor control commission the authority to deny a permit if it has reasonable cause to believe “that the number of permit premises in the locality is such that the granting of a permit is detrimental to public interest, and, in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.